OBJECTIVE: The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of total tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) versus standard PCNL. METHOD: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database were researched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and clinically controlled trials (CCTs) comparing total tubeless PCNL (tubeless and stentless) versus standard PCNL were included in this review. The related studies that met the inclusion criteria were included in the meta-analysis. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of each included studies and extracted data. RevMan 5.1. was used for meta-analysis. OUTCOME: Five RCTs and four CCTs were included, involving a total of 652 patients. All patients were divided into the total tubeless PCNL group and the standard PCNL group. The pooled results showed that the total tubeless PCNL group significantly reduced the hospital stay [weighted mean difference (WMD) -1.09 (95% confidence intervals, 95% CI -1.33, -0.85)] and analgesic requirement [standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.59 (95% CI -0.96, -0.23)]. There was no statistically significant difference in the operation time [WMD -4.14 (95% CI -8.27, -0.01)], mean hemoglobin decrease [-0.07 (95% CI -0.20, 0.06)], fever [relative risk (RR) 0.53 (95% CI 0.16, 1.69)], transfusion [RR 0.86 (95% CI 0.40, 1.85)], prolonged urinary drainage [RR 0.58 (95% CI 0.08, 4.09)], and ancillary procedure [extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, RR 0.84 (95% CI 0.29, 2.41), second-look PCNL RR 1.18 (95% CI 0.49, 2.89)]. According to the study design, the subgroup analyses were performed; most results were consistent with the overall findings, except the one that evaluated the analgesic requirement in the CCT subgroup. CONCLUSION: Total tubeless PCNL is a safe and effective procedure. It significantly reduced the hospital stay, analgesic requirement, and the time to return to normal activity without increasing complications. However, further randomized trials are needed to confirm these findings.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of total tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) versus standard PCNL. METHOD: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database were researched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and clinically controlled trials (CCTs) comparing total tubeless PCNL (tubeless and stentless) versus standard PCNL were included in this review. The related studies that met the inclusion criteria were included in the meta-analysis. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of each included studies and extracted data. RevMan 5.1. was used for meta-analysis. OUTCOME: Five RCTs and four CCTs were included, involving a total of 652 patients. All patients were divided into the total tubeless PCNL group and the standard PCNL group. The pooled results showed that the total tubeless PCNL group significantly reduced the hospital stay [weighted mean difference (WMD) -1.09 (95% confidence intervals, 95% CI -1.33, -0.85)] and analgesic requirement [standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.59 (95% CI -0.96, -0.23)]. There was no statistically significant difference in the operation time [WMD -4.14 (95% CI -8.27, -0.01)], mean hemoglobin decrease [-0.07 (95% CI -0.20, 0.06)], fever [relative risk (RR) 0.53 (95% CI 0.16, 1.69)], transfusion [RR 0.86 (95% CI 0.40, 1.85)], prolonged urinary drainage [RR 0.58 (95% CI 0.08, 4.09)], and ancillary procedure [extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, RR 0.84 (95% CI 0.29, 2.41), second-look PCNL RR 1.18 (95% CI 0.49, 2.89)]. According to the study design, the subgroup analyses were performed; most results were consistent with the overall findings, except the one that evaluated the analgesic requirement in the CCT subgroup. CONCLUSION: Total tubeless PCNL is a safe and effective procedure. It significantly reduced the hospital stay, analgesic requirement, and the time to return to normal activity without increasing complications. However, further randomized trials are needed to confirm these findings.
Authors: Tanja Hüsch; Michael Reiter; René Mager; Eva Steiner; Thomas R W Herrmann; Axel Haferkamp; David Schilling Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: A Häcker; A Bachmann; T Herrmann; R Homberg; J Klein; H Leyh; A Miernik; C Netsch; P Olbert; J Rassweiler; M Schoenthaler; K D Sievert; J Westphal; A J Gross Journal: Urologe A Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Murat M Rifaioglu; Kadir Onem; Ibrahim Buldu; Tuna Karatag; Mustafa Okan Istanbulluoglu Journal: Urolithiasis Date: 2014-01-28 Impact factor: 3.436